`571-272-7822
` Entered: September 11, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION,
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`AMERICAN VEHICULAR SCIENCES LLC,
`Patent Owner
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2013-00417
`Patent 8,036,788 B2
`_______________
`
`
`Before JAMESON LEE, BARBARA A. PARVIS,
`and GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`
`Order
`Conduct of the Proceedings
`37 C.F.R. § 42.05
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00417
`Patent 8,036,788 B2
`
`
`Introduction
`A conference was held on September 11, 2014, between Antony Pfeffer and
`Thomas Makin, counsel for Petitioner, Toyota Motor Company, Thomas
`Wimbiscus and Scott McBride, counsel for Patent Owner, American Vehicular
`Sciences, LLC, and Judges Lee, Parvis and Anderson. The purpose of the
`conference was to make of record Petitioner’s position regarding Patent Owner’s
`Second Motion to Amend (“Second Motion,” Paper 75) filed September 3, 2014.
`Discussion
`Patent Owner filed a Motion to Amend on March 24, 2014 (“First Motion,”
`
`Paper 29), which sought to cancel claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16 and 18, but not
`claim 9. Patent Owner withdrew the First Motion on August 7, 2014 (Paper 64).
`At the final hearing on this matter, the parties represented that the only
`remaining claim for our consideration was claim 9 and that claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8,
`11, 15, 16 and 18 had been cancelled. In order that the preceding be made of
`record, our Order dated August 29, 2014 (Paper 74) required Patent Owner file a
`paper to indicate that it requests cancellation of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16
`and 18. In response to our Order, Patent Owner filed its Second Motion seeking
`cancellation of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16 and 18, but not claim 9.
`An additional motion to amend may be filed only with authorization of the
`Board and a showing of good cause. 37 CFR § 42.122(c). Our Order constituted
`authorization to file the Second Motion. At the conference, counsel for Petitioner
`stated it had no objection to the Second Motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2013-00417
`Patent 8,036,788 B2
`
`
`
`ORDER
`Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Second Motion will be
`treated as unopposed by Petitioner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FOR PETITONER:
`
`A. Antony Pfeffer
`Thomas R. Makin
`Matt Berkowitz
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`apfeffer@kenyon.com
`tmakin@kenyon.com
`mberkowitz@kenyon.com
`ptab@kenyon.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`Thomas J. Wimbiscus
`Scott P. McBride
`Stephanie Samz
`MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD.
`twimbiscus@mcandrews-ip.com
`smcbride@mcandrews-ip.com
`ssamz@mcandrews-ip.com
`
`
`3
`
`
`